Talk:Corkscrew landing

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Some of article appears to be Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing[edit]

Hi all. Some of the text of this article would appear to be Close paraphrasing verging on WP:COPYVIO issues. While I would have some sympathy with the the main contributor's possible rationalisation - along the lines of "well, it's very difficult be be concise here without being very near to the sources" - I still think there is a problem here that needs to be addressed. (ps: 2 Samuel 12:7)--Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing (talk) 11:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty confusing, since you seem to be the main contributor. :) Am I missing something? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, MRG, you are not missing something. What I was missing is just perhaps just a little common sense.

What I should have written is

"Hi all. I'm the main contributor to this article, and it looks to me like I may have closely paraphrased some of the sources. I'd sincerely appreciate your thoughts about this."

--Shirt58 (talk) 10:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've read through the article and through the sources, and I don't see an issue. :) I think you're smart to have multiple references, because it proves handily that the words you're using to describe it are pretty straightforward and uncreative.... All of the sources sound pretty similar for that reason. Aymath is actually busily at work on Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing to try to help clarify when and why the use of uncreative language to disclose the same facts is not an issue. I've removed the tag. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]